Iran?

Pestcontrol

In Cryo Sleep
Hmm, i think the main spark point is the cultural difference. The position of women in our societies is as unacceptable to them as the position of their women is unacceptable to us, to give an example. With reduced dependancy on oil the cash flow towards middle east nations is also reduced, it would put more pressure on the regimes to reform, but also increase poverty. The best way to close any socioeconomic or cultural gap, as always, is to close the gap in wealth and education.

As i said, Iran has already been offered expertise and materials suitable for civil nuclear power generation, but declined (as expected..). Because they want a bomb, obviously. :)
 

Taffy

New Member
Pestcontrol speaks the truth. If I was the Iranian president, I wouldn't be worrying about global warming and what-not, i'd be more interested in peoples poor quality of life. There are children in Iran starving, and yet you believe that they are worrying about global warming?
 

MadGinga

In Cryo Sleep
right, first of all i wasnt saying that they should give a smeg about global warming, although they should, but then again, its not a proven phenomenom (thats a whole new kettle of fish in itself)

If they did accept the help that has been offered, as mentioned by Pestcontrol, although i suspect that this "help" was offered with such provisos that any self respecting nation would turn it down. Then they would be looking out for their nations wellfare, surely a safe (yeah i know some of you will disagree with this, but hey, have you done a degree in physics?) form of energy is a good thing for a country, and if there is power available, the country's business and infrastructure can grow and expand, increasing the wellfare (and also the GDP) of the country
 

Tetsuo_Shima

In Cryo Sleep
Ya, but I dont think we're arguing against that point. We're simply saying that Iran doesnt want a 'clean, efficient, wonderful' power supply for anything other than the byproducts which happen to be an integral part of a nuclear weapon. There isnt any proof that Iran can give us that they wont start researching and attempting to produce nuclear weapons.

Its kind of like, why would you give a five year old a machine gun even if he promised to you he wouldnt use it?
 

MadGinga

In Cryo Sleep
If we're gonna debate, whos alowed nukes and who isnt, why are we (i.e. UK, US, France, Germany, etc) allowed them and others not? if we go by who will be responsible with them, then by that argument alone the US shouldnt have them, having been the only country to use them in anger.

Also their track record on invading countries for no reason than other than the country might be about to sort itself out and in the process screw some american interests.

I dont see how, we have the right to turn round to developing countries, and say you cant have this or that cos its bad for the environment, our economy, our world domination plans, etc. If some other country had been advanced when we were developing, how do you think you would feel if you were told you couldnt have a certain technology because they'd deemed it unsuitable in some way? (especially the way we (as the west) demand that developing countries cut greenhouse gas emissions, but we didnt do anything to help the environment when WE were developing, i know thats beside the point here, but i'm just trying to give an analogy)
 

Pestcontrol

In Cryo Sleep
As i said before, it's quite simple, and "Rights" have very little to do with it. Do you think the situation in the middle east improves with a nuclear Iran?

I think the debate of who should or should not be having nukes is beyond the scope of this thread.
 

MadGinga

In Cryo Sleep
The situation in the middle east is going from bad to worse, despite the slight lull in conflict between Israel and Palestine, its not going to be helped my America stomping into Iran blowing things up all over the shop.

Although i agree that its probably not the best idea for Iran to have The Bomb, who decided Israel were allowed it? What makes Israel a sensible, and responsible country, that Iran doesnt have?
Oh wait silly me they're best buddys with America, and buy a lot of American war machinery, thats why :|
From my point of view, they're not being particularly sensible/responsible by blowing up/buldozing/shooting palestinian civilians willy-nilly.
 

decky101

In Cryo Sleep
iran is in deep s**t atm i feel so it shud send that s**t into outside space and let their grandchildren deal with the consequences :p
 

MadGinga

In Cryo Sleep
now that was a useful comment, but anyways, as Irans president has sent a letter to Bush, trying to reach a non military solution to the "problem" the balls in Bush's court, and its gonna make look such a twassock if he invades, cos he'll be the bad guy (not that he isnt already)
 
F

Fi$hy

Guest
Aye, but then there's the issue of what's more important?

A state's right to decide what happens within it's borders or a state's requirement to bend to a decision made higher up?

A highly contentious issue, after all America went to war with itself over a similar issue.
 

MoTo^

In Cryo Sleep
Pestcontrol said:
As i said before, it's quite simple, and "Rights" have very little to do with it. Do you think the situation in the middle east improves with a nuclear Iran?

I think the debate of who should or should not be having nukes is beyond the scope of this thread.

I'm not sure I agree.
In your other post you mentioned as long as a country does something within it's own borders then it's ok (or at least thats what I think you meant), but the US has NO solid proof that Iran is intending to do anything other than research and power production with it's nuclear facilities, ie within Iran.
Also yes you're right, I wouldn't like to see Iran with a nulcear bomb either in the Middle East, but don't forget both India and Pakistan have this capability and I'm sure you know they don't exactly have good ties with each other. So here are we saying as long as a country has a bomb but we're allies with them and we know they're not going to attack us it's ok, and if two other countries with bombs that can potentially attack each other let's leave them to it?

Also what happened to North Korea? A while ago there was a lot of talk about them researching nuclear technology as well, and a communist country with Kim Jong-il isn't exactly the greatest candidate for a nuclear bomb.
 

Haven

Administrator
Staff member
Those with the biggest guns speak with the loudest voices in international politics. If iran has both a large oil supply and the means to defend it then they have a very loud voice indeed. Given the US dependency on oil imports they would be stupid not to develop nuclear technology.

The only other nation in such a similarly strong position is Russia, who unsurprisingly have supplied Iran with much of the means to defend their oil supply. This has the added benefit of strengthening russia's position as there are no longer weak targets for US aggression to supply its ever increasing oil needs. Looking forwards to the next 50 years as oil and gas prices continue to rise this gameplay will pay off in a very big way as Saudi's supplies dwindle thereby making both Russia and Iran's supplies vastly more valuable. If Iran can keep foreign aggressors out until it has consolidated its power then in a few years time it could become an incredibly profitable and powerful nation.

Other tidbits worth reading:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=ar4D7HVGikXo&refer=top_world_news

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-2097772,00.html#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=World

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/006581.php

Forget religion and terrorism. This is a simple question on long term energy supplies. Those who have them will exert a great deal of control on the world structure.
 

Pestcontrol

In Cryo Sleep
MoTo^ said:
[...]the US has NO solid proof that Iran is intending to do anything other than research and power production with it's nuclear facilities, ie within Iran.

Wrong. The science section of the newspaper i read explained the gory details from sattelite photos and other assorted evidence. well over a year ago. In short it boils down to the nuclear technology that Iran is persueing is ideal for making bombs, and also suitable for power generation as a result of this. Another problem is there is really no 100% distinction between civil and military nuclear technology. It's impossible for Iran to persue it's own nuclear power program and at the same time convincingly reassure the world that they will not make a bomb, whether they want one or not.

MoTo^ said:
Also yes you're right, I wouldn't like to see Iran with a nulcear bomb either in the Middle East, but don't forget both India and Pakistan have this capability and I'm sure you know they don't exactly have good ties with each other. So here are we saying as long as a country has a bomb but we're allies with them and we know they're not going to attack us it's ok, and if two other countries with bombs that can potentially attack each other let's leave them to it?

India and Pakistan have their own little state of MAD. I'd agree with you though that Pakistan is the second scariest nation to be having nukes. Before even North Korea if they had them. President Musharraf is friendly and western oriented but his power has little base with the population. A coup by extremist muslim forces is the nightmare scenario, Pakistan as a potential enemy, rather than an ally, is often overlooked. I'm not so worried about India, they're a large enough power already to behave responsibly and don't want to jeopardise their economy and foreign investments.

MoTo^ said:
Also what happened to North Korea? A while ago there was a lot of talk about them researching nuclear technology as well, and a communist country with Kim Jong-il isn't exactly the greatest candidate for a nuclear bomb.

It's unlikely North Korea will get a nuke, the nation is totally exhausted and likely does not have the industrial means to persue a real nuclear program. Kim Jong-Il claims to have nukes, but there has never been a weapons test.
The whole question is moot however. NK is in a stalemate. Nukes or no nukes, they will be obliterated if they attack South Korea, and don't hold any valuable resources or strategic positions, and most of it's population is being fed by international aid programs. Attacking NK is pointless and far too dangerous, the current strategy appears to be sitting back and watching Kim's regime crumble untill it falls. I expect it won't be another decade before the regime falls, or change course, open it's borders and model itself after China.

Haven: Very very true.

I'm secretly hoping Israel will single handedly deliver a quick strike to take out the vital parts of Iran's nuclear program should they come too close to getting a bomb. The whole world will publically disprove of the action, and breathe a sigh of relief at the same time, and Iran would think twice before going to war with Israel. It would have to happen quickly though.
 

MadGinga

In Cryo Sleep
Pestcontrol said:
I'm secretly hoping Israel will single handedly deliver a quick strike to take out the vital parts of Iran's nuclear program...

Are you kidding?!! that'd probably be the last straw that breaks the camels back, and the arab nations would turn around and jointly pound in israel with everything they had.

The arab countries have kind of grown to ignore Israels infractions against Palestine, mainly because palestine attacks back, but if Israel were to attack Iran, then god (or maybe Allah) help the middle east cos its not gonna be pretty.

I can see it going something like this:
  • Israeli helicopter gunships take out facilities in Iran,
  • Iran retaliates with figthers, Israel shoots down fighters,
  • Tit-for-tat retaliations escalte between Israel and Iran
  • Isreal missiles take out targets in surrounding arab countries for "security" reasons
  • other arab countries attack Israel
  • Israel is being attacked on multiple fronts but holding its own,
  • massive suicide bombing stuns Israel,
  • Israeli positions get overun,
  • America steps in to help Israel (well mainly American interests in the region) and the fighting escalates,
  • Jerusalem will become a warground between arab militia and US and Israeli forces,
  • The whole region will destabalise, oil prices will sky rocket,
  • the western world will come to a standstill as the oil supply dries up.
  • Civilisation will be f****d.

maybe a tad drastic/apocalyptical, but hey it could go down like that
 

Pestcontrol

In Cryo Sleep
Hmm, i wouldn't mind the oil drying up for a time. It would finally prompt people to conserve and invest in other methods. Economic shock therapy. :)

For now any arab nation that attacks israel will lose, you could be right though, the consequences may not be pretty.
 

MadGinga

In Cryo Sleep
Pestcontrol said:
Economic shock therapy

Not sure how, much of a good thing it'd be, rolling blackouts, stockpilling, no or little public transport, no private cars, anything made of plastic will become more expensive, few luxury food items due to increase in transport costs.
Although i agree, it would help promote different energy solutions, i.e. fuel cells, renewable energy, nuclear power, etc.

The long term consequences would be beneficial, but thwe short term consequences would be catastrophic

Pestcontrol said:
any arab nation that attacks israel will lose

Only, and only if they attack alone.....
 

MadGinga

In Cryo Sleep
What, who? me? no i have nothing against Israel, i just reckon that whatever happens in the middle east in the near future Israel wont be far from the centre of the problem, be that they started it, or got started upon. And i wouldnt like to be an Israeli, Palestinian, Iranian, Syrian, Lebanesse, or Jordanian, when the s**t hits the fan....
 

Taffy

New Member
MadGinga said:
What, who? me? no i have nothing against Israel, i just reckon that whatever happens in the middle east in the near future Israel wont be far from the centre of the problem, be that they started it, or got started upon. And i wouldnt like to be an Israeli, Palestinian, Iranian, Syrian, Lebanesse, or Jordanian, when the s**t hits the fan....

It could well be nearly as bad being British or American, or even a Westerner in general. In fact, this could get a lot more messy than previously mentioned by MadGinga. This couls turn into World War 3. Think about it:

  1. Israel attacks/gets attacked
  2. Attacked country retaliates
  3. Other Muslim countries percieve it as an attack on Islam and attack Israel
  4. Western countries, especially UK and US, are bound to get involved to protect their interests in the Middle East and to help our good friends Israel
  5. China and Russia (possibly North Korea) percieve Western involvement as 'illegal' or 'immoral' and get involved
  6. Either two outcomes: 1) MAD occurs, in which case every country gets screwed beyond believe OR 2) Situation is resolved without resorting to WMD's with millions of losses on both sides and economic crisis globally

Maybe a little bit far-fetched, but the most worrying thing is that this IS a possibility. Whatever option governments take, theres sure to be a large backlash on people.
 

MadGinga

In Cryo Sleep
wow, Taffy, i thought i was being apocalyptical, but hey you've taken the biscuit and scoffed it. i doubt china would get involved in the middle east, and russia, is kinda part of the west now, although it does keep giving banned tech to countries such as north korea and iran.

The only people who would consider using nukes, would be the countries there The US and UK wouldnt as they would have too much to lose in the eyes of the world, but if arab nations have the bomb and are losing to israel(or vica versa) then MAD might occur on a small scale.
 
Top